Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210C8C002A for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 20:59:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6CB4011D for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 20:59:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org EF6CB4011D Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com header.i=@q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=SMwAVsY1 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I5kzfYLE4UMR for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 20:59:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org BDB6C400A6 Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDB6C400A6 for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 20:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-b9a2b7852e6so1133423276.0 for ; Mon, 08 May 2023 13:59:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1683579557; x=1686171557; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rzYL6bDXhG49o11eRTQGqGzp1m93gjgjYxEPm+liDA4=; b=SMwAVsY1QSqhfJ8X7xykdcSMvPmuFUoofkKZUuvlbTiBZchjD3y6LAyqxSgZGpS+yd wtcewzoGacl9CvvzxyqKyH/urAd0Do27kjsyoTfn1Cde0KzqhlVtvYHt+dN0aPSjaaDx F3CUI6WGf9ZU7bcDbCaEIg1j2/K0+A0ENhR31f0zURr+CP1HkGwJx74B0K7dxz5infp+ 1OC9dX5Hg9gY4wzESE6414U1nucrrLNxTBtMKmv1SLwcxhlMCKGttXMCMRVnWqsDwaSJ onb9/9jN42IFCs3VpDSBNuNq3G+7gairWCDw2VsMDIauSyAmAWxJTYZk5UEIDZWl4UlT ilZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683579557; x=1686171557; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rzYL6bDXhG49o11eRTQGqGzp1m93gjgjYxEPm+liDA4=; b=Wt2pfs5NlV09rK5b8Paur3cHz2LAGi6reIQQK11qiYZXTqeVVAilKEyMSpoOfogChs XW4LyHxrLOgZ0kvYJRluXjdeXTzbfkNnzoFDPiqc6SsEntGteaVYRMf3QT3kdmW29peX iuYSQkCHAJ6hwFr3I9Lgqv+7vAWsB9+j5cK6pm/YnTTfzisnS5hmHeQAjClwfPvy6W2R ZgZZdeWviGOJInmvzVybNpWQT37ZLlm641TOlpMKlRLmu55lpcCOQYfhHrawcvwVr1tD lfj4Y5bUVgbKbch9x84piJoK0mgqCMSSZa6ApZrq1+cdKwxQddGhemzTc1o4t4sWjlZp GchA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxCpfMkVTe89sQ+FxsuVQrqiuHr/ic+7rqWNrNI6MUgHaz4wS2W fOd4pgXNHmITDmJ9gu4Lop3LDWQGqG4wd8Op2wUhbew9Wp6y/F5v0w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5EnBZwdyDFHqLBdQDFqx2M/KN+3xWzy74Dis1nDZ+fQyVjEySyivSYuGuYUEcLhxJswZ4UXU/iIBJiFZNFqQU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:abf0:0:b0:b8f:2156:c566 with SMTP id v103-20020a25abf0000000b00b8f2156c566mr11965983ybi.6.1683579557415; Mon, 08 May 2023 13:59:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <-2tdTjN6WfQI-CTPM49DiMOC2X5El1vJdlWTQvpalXAHKVLdFd_7ADpYN7Cz57v0fJSkaiG75fHJzcBtvJgn7Pj-RZrEk6hXk6Rp_1Y7SrE=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 16:59:05 -0400 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000788f5205fb34e9d7" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 May 2023 01:59:03 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Ali Sherief Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 20:59:26 -0000 --000000000000788f5205fb34e9d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > value you can from these Lightning channel(s) onchain even if it means paying a higher fee than the amount you are receiving. in that case, you're not getting any value - you're losing value. the only benefit i could imagine would be to prevent the other party from having access to the funds should the channel expire. regardless, this is an edge case. it's clear that a utxo whose value is less than the fee paid to move it is dust, and we already have plenty of code to censor dust transactions > no reason to prevent the reason to prevent them is to prevent something that has more value than the bitcoin itself from being stored on-chain. that is to say: real-estate ownership, nfts, or any other thing that isn't "using bitcoin as money" by going at the "incentive/economic layer", rather than pointlessly forcing brc-20 and ordinals users to obfuscate their transactions, we can provide a permanent incentive to keep that stuff off of bitcoin personally, i'm not sure it's desirable to keep it off of bitcoin, but if it is, the only sure way to disincentivize it is to go at it in this way or similar i suspect all the opcode validation suggestions are just silly. ordinals can time their fork to the same moment, and store data in a less efficient, but still functional, way using any number of mechanisms. we've had similar things posted on-chain since 2010 (my favorite was a software license key - in an attempt to make bitcoin nodes illegal. it's still in there) On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:36=E2=80=AFPM Michael Folkson < michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> wrote: > > im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain transaction fee greater > than the amount receiving could possibly serve. > > If you expect fees to continue to rise and be sustained at abnormally hig= h > levels for a long period of time you might seek to close your Lightning > channel(s) and move whatever value you can from these Lightning channel(s= ) > onchain even if it means paying a higher fee than the amount you are > receiving. > > I don't necessarily recommend doing this (it would depend on a number of > factors, both personal and external) but there is no reason to prevent > someone in say the consensus rules from doing this if they wish. > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F > > Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 20:47, Erik Aronesty wrote: > > im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain transaction fee greater > than the amount receiving could possibly serve. > > what benefit do you get aside from losing bitcoin? > > are there any, non-theoretical, benefits to facilitating dust transaction= s? > > we could, of course, have it be non-consensus (no route dust) to start wi= th > > > > > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:13=E2=80=AFPM Michael Folkson < > michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> wrote: > >> > probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher >> than the sum of the outputs >> >> And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of value and attempted >> Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I *want*=E2=80=8B to clos= e my >> Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike where I have to pay an >> onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am receiving you want = to >> stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use case as well as >> requiring a consensus rule change. >> >> -- >> Michael Folkson >> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com >> GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F >> >> Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin >> >> ------- Original Message ------- >> On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> probably easier just to reject any transaction where the fee is higher >> than the sum of the outputs >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I think everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin >>> mempool during the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 >>> having such a high volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced o= ut >>> and that is what is causing the massive congestion that has arguable no= t >>> been seen since December 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion >>> because that was only with 1-5sat/vbyte. >>> >>> Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - that's ho= w >>> its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and normal us= e of >>> the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as it was inten= ded >>> to be used as. >>> >>> If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, should we take >>> an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, miners, = and >>> users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault for >>> allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin >>> transactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has = a >>> strong history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely >>> necessary - an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - sh= ould >>> similar action be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits = into >>> the Bitcoin Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which >>> defines the validation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed the= se >>> unintended consequences? >>> >>> An alternative would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level >>> and introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Tap= root >>> transactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road >>> until minimum next release. >>> >>> I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, >>> absolutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but = we >>> need to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We >>> indirectly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible bef= ore. >>> So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this ki= nd >>> of congestion can never happen again using Taproot. >>> >>> -Ali >>> >>> --- >>> >>> [1]: >>> https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/05/pump-the-brcs-th= e-promise-and-peril-of-bitcoin-backed-tokens/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> >> > --000000000000788f5205fb34e9d7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0value you can fro= m these Lightning channel(s) onchain even if it means paying a higher fee t= han the amount you are receiving.

<= /div>
in that case, you're not getting any= value - you're losing value.=C2=A0 =C2=A0the only benefit i could imag= ine would be to prevent the other party from having access to the funds sho= uld the channel expire.=C2=A0 =C2=A0

regardless, this is an edge cas= e.=C2=A0 =C2=A0it's clear that a utxo whose value is less than the fee = paid to move it is dust, and we already have plenty of code to censor dust = transactions

> no reason to p= revent

the reason to prevent them is to prevent something that has m= ore value than the bitcoin itself from being stored on-chain.=C2=A0 that is= to say:=C2=A0 real-estate ownership, nfts, or any other thing that isn'= ;t "using bitcoin as money"
by going at the "incentive/econo= mic layer", rather than pointlessly forcing brc-20 and ordinals users = to obfuscate their transactions, we can provide a permanent incentive to ke= ep that stuff off of bitcoin

<= div style=3D"font-size:14px">personally, i'm not sure it's desirabl= e to keep it off of bitcoin, but if it is, the only sure way to disincentiv= ize it is to go at it in this way or similar

i suspect all the opcode valid= ation suggestions are just silly.=C2=A0 =C2=A0ordinals can time their fork = to the same moment, and store data in a less efficient, but still=C2=A0func= tional, way using any number of mechanisms.=C2=A0 =C2=A0we've had simil= ar things posted on-chain since 2010 (my favorite was a software license ke= y - in an attempt to make bitcoin nodes illegal.=C2=A0 =C2=A0it's still= in there)


On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 4:36=E2=80=AFPM Michael Folk= son <michaelfolkson@pro= tonmail.com> wrote:
&= gt;=C2=A0im unclear as to the purpose=C2=A0paying an onchai= n transaction fee greater than the amount receiving could possibly serve.

If you expect fees to continue to rise and be susta= ined at abnormally high levels for a long period of time you might seek to = close your Lightning channel(s) and move whatever value you can from these = Lightning channel(s) onchain even if it means paying a higher fee than the = amount you are receiving.

I don't necessarily recommend doing this (it = would depend on a number of factors, both personal and external) but there = is no reason to prevent someone in say the consensus rules from doing this = if they wish.

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson = at protonmail.com
GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE= 0F


------- Original Message -------
On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 20:47, Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:

im unclear as to the purpose paying an onchain tran= saction fee greater than the amount receiving could possibly serve.<= /div>
<= br>
what benefit do you get aside from losing bitcoin?

are there any, non-theoretical, benefits to facilitating dust transactio= ns?

we could, of course, have it be non-consensus (no rout= e dust) to start with





On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:13=E2=80=AFPM Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> probably easier just to reject any transaction w= here the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs

And prevent perfectly reasonable transfers of v= alue and attempted Lightning channel closes during fee spikes? If I want= =E2=80=8B to close my Lightning channel during a protracted fee spike w= here I have to pay an onchain transaction fee greater than the amount I am = receiving you want to stop me doing that? You are impinging on a valid use = case as well as requiring a consensus rule change.

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson = at protonmail.com
GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE= 0F


------- Original Message -------
On Monday, May 8th, 2023 at 13:58, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:

probably easier just to reject any transactio= n where the fee is higher than the sum of the outputs

=


On Mon, May 8, 2023, 7:55 AM Ali Sherief = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi guys,

I thi= nk everyone on this list knows what has happened to the Bitcoin mempool dur= ing the past 96 hours. Due to side projects such as BRC-20 having such a hi= gh volume, real bitcoin transactions are being priced out and that is what = is causing the massive congestion that has arguable not been seen since Dec= ember 2017. I do not count the March 2021 congestion because that was only = with 1-5sat/vbyte.

Such justifiably worthless ("worthless" is not even my word - t= hat's how its creator described them[1]) tokens threaten the smooth and= normal use of the Bitcoin network as a peer-to-pear digital currency, as i= t was intended to be used as.

If the volume does not die down over the next few weeks, shoul= d we take an action? The bitcoin network is a triumvirate of developers, mi= ners, and users. Considering that miners are largely the entities at fault = for allowing the system to be abused like this, the harmony of Bitcoin tran= sactions is being disrupted right now. Although this community has a strong= history of not putting its fingers into pies unless absolutely necessary -= an example being during the block size wars and Segwit - should similar ac= tion be taken now, in the form of i) BIPs and/or ii) commits into the Bitco= in Core codebase, to curtail the loophole in BIP 342 (which defines the val= idation rules for Taproot scripts) which has allowed these unintended conse= quences?
An alter= native would be to enforce this "censorship" at the node level an= d introduce a run-time option to instantly prune all non-standard Taproot t= ransactions. This will be easier to implement, but won't hit the road u= ntil minimum next release.

I know that some people will have their criticisms about this, ab= solutists/libertarians/maximum-freedom advocates, which is fine, but we nee= d to find a solution for this that fits everyone's common ground. We in= directly allowed this to happen, which previously wasn't possible befor= e. So we also have a responsibility to do something to ensure that this kin= d of congestion can never happen again using Taproot.

-Ali

---

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>
https://lists.linuxf= oundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--000000000000788f5205fb34e9d7--